My family reads a lot. I would say that between us we buy about 100 books a year, and that doesn't include about a dozen subscriptions to magazines and journals.
Most softcover books cost about $7, and most hardcover, a bit under $20.
But then there are the membership discounts available from B&N which brings it down further.
So far, e books cost the same, sometimes more, when the discounted memberships come into play.
There doesn't seem to be any price advantage yet to buying e books, and I've bought a number.
Well, in my experience, books carry similar costs as CDs, and while 10 bucks for an album on iTunes also sometimes means spending more than buying the physical CD online, there are nevertheless millions of people that have been doing that for the past 4 or 5 years. Additionally, while you could buy the CD online for 7 bucks and rip it to your iPod yourself, you can't do that with a book.
Besides that, there's the convenience thing for travellers not having to carry around a ton of books, being able to get newspapers (hopefully more in the future), and downloading new content via wireless.
And with books, you might not get the physical book, but I don't think there's quite the same trade-off in quality/value as from CD/liner notes to iTunes AAC...
I can shove my paperback in pockets I can't shove a Kindle without breaking it. I don't worry about dropping it either.
Quite a few people will say you're wrong in that, as PDa and smartphone book readers have been out for years, and are popular.
You obviously haven't tried it.
Well, I don't wear pants big enough to shove books or newspapers into, and, yes, I've tried reading from both my Blackberry 8300, and my iPod 5.5G, and can't imagine getting through 300 pages on either.
Well, in my experience, books carry similar costs as CDs, and while 10 bucks for an album on iTunes also sometimes means spending more than buying the physical CD online, there are nevertheless millions of people that have been doing that for the past 4 or 5 years. Additionally, while you could buy the CD online for 7 bucks and rip it to your iPod yourself, you can't do that with a book.
Most all CD's, whether online or in a store, cost more than $7. Some cost a lot more. Unless you're buying used Cd's. That makes the iTunes version less expensive.
Many people find a paper book to be more pleasant to handle and read. That may change over time.
Quote:
Besides that, there's the convenience thing for travellers not having to carry around a ton of books, being able to get newspapers (hopefully more in the future), and downloading new content via wireless.
I'm not knocking the e book as a concept. As I said, I have two readers. I've got several hundred e books. A fair number of them bought, and a larger number from the Gutenberg Project.
Of course, the auto downloads only work in some places.
Quote:
And with books, you might not get the physical book, but I don't think there's quite the same trade-off in quality/value as from CD/liner notes to iTunes AAC...
I'm not saying there is, except for when there are photos, graphics, or any other oddities that isn't translated to the electronic version. Or, in the case of the Sony and Kindle, color, which I do get on my Treo bookreaders.
Well, I don't wear pants big enough to shove books or newspapers into, and, yes, I've tried reading from both my Blackberry 8300, and my iPod 5.5G, and can't imagine getting through 300 pages on either.
Well, lots of people spend 300 bucks on an iPod, and then spend more on music to put in it. Same with DVD players and DVDs, Microwave ovens and food, computers and programs, apartments and furniture, etc.
If you read a lot of books, but don't spend 400 bucks in 2 years, you either use the library a lot (unlikely since you say you like having your own), or your definition of a lot is less than a book a month. Nowadays, unless you get discount versions of classics, most new softcover books seem to be in the 15 dollar range and hardcovers get up around 30 bucks.
Maybe you could have done a simple search to see why people would buy kindle - books cost 10 bucks or less (big savings especially over "new release" books which can be up to 30 bucks), you get 2 weeks of power (if you don't use wireless) on a charge, you can download newspapers and books basically from anywhere in the world with wireless service (including via cellphone networks) without having to sync with a computer, etc. etc and it's thinner and lighter than the average paperback. So, if yo read a LOT of books, it makes sense to have one, especially if you travel a lot, or don't feel like having hundreds of books lying around... hmmm kind of like an iPod vs. CDs...
An iPod is a different beast. I can load all my own songs easily. I'll listen to songs several times and it also holds my calendars, notes, contacts and photos as well as some videos. Seems to me a much more solid set of features than that $400 reader.
Holy crap! Where do you shop that you're paying $15 for a softcover book?
Sorry, Kindle does a single thing somewhat well (and that is attributable solely to the screen) and nothing else even remotely as well as many other devices. It's a one trick pony.
Sorry, are books pocketable? (aside from the gideons' new testament of course)
Do you think any iPod-sized device will ever be comfortable to read novels on?
No, not all are but if you're going to make me pay $400 dollars, you'd better have a LOT to offer and the Kindle doesn't.
As for reading on an iPod, I'd think that based on the great high res screen the iPhone and iPod touch have that reading on them would be a pleasure. In fact, that could just be an app that complements their other features.
If the Kindle was in the $100 dollar range it'd seem more in line with what it actually offers. Amazon's goal is to sell content, right? A $400 device is a tough hurdle toward achieving that goal.
The successful eBook reader will fill a need in two key markets, guaranteeing that nobody has to pay $400. for it.
The first is the newspaper and magazine industry. Print and distribution costs make eBooks a natural to transform the financial status of the industry. One daily newspaper plus one gossip rag alone will subsidize the hardware cost for readers. Think subscription-based cell phone strategy.
The problem is that the magazine-size device must be colour, which is not yet available.
The other market is the Education sector. Jobs has addressed this at Education conferences, so he's definitely not being sincere in saying there's no need for eBooks. The biggest factor here is having solid publishing tools ready so that textbook publishers can get their work on the iTunes Book Store quickly, in time for the semester's classes.
This is the only time where the "Apple buys Adobe" rumour even starts to make sense, since Jobs will want to control eBook production. Alternately, Apple could buy Quark and 'Appleize' it.
Aside from the obvious environmental benefits, this will usher in an age of cheap books and the ability to compile a vast library of information at ridiculously low prices.
Jobs knows this, and he's just laying the groundwork for his "Apple saves the book industry" speech at MWSF in a couple of years.
Do people still read newspapers anymore? Why is a specialized device explicitly for reading content a good idea?
With devices like the iPhone and iPod touch sporting proper browsers to be able to view real sites and render real web content (as opposed to my Cingular 2125 "smart" phone), is there *really* a large enough market for a single tasker to bother?
Ignoring my obvious bias against the Kindle ( I like Amazon and I enjoy reading, I just don't think the Kindle is worth the bother) what is the point? The type of person likely to be the target for such a device would likely have other gadgets that are already capable of being used and probably do a good job of it.
I think Amazon would almost be better served talking to Apple about including "Amazon Reader" on the iPhone/iPod Touch. That would provide a greater potential for book sales than the Kindle IMO.
Books are already produced mostly from renewable woods (economic foresting), or even recycled from old paper.
Power to drive an eBook reader however is still largely provided through non-renewable, eg fossil energy sources.
So saying that switching from paper to power is more environmentally friendly is, at least at the current state of the world, not quite true.
But the same power (and possibly much more) is already being used to process the paper, print the media and distribute the dead tree versions directly to homes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancho
Do people still read newspapers anymore? Why is a specialized device explicitly for reading content a good idea?
Look, if you want to read books on an iPhone, more power to you. But those of us that understand ergonomics know that reading a novel is a personal experience that simply can't be done properly on that device. It's also singularly useless for replicating the newspaper or the college textbook.
Why is a specialized device explicitly for listening to music a good idea? It's a profoundly silly question.
But the same power (and possibly much more) is already being used to process the paper, print the media and distribute the dead tree versions directly to homes.
Look, if you want to read books on an iPhone, more power to you. But those of us that understand ergonomics know that reading a novel is a personal experience that simply can't be done properly on that device. It's also singularly useless for replicating the newspaper or the college textbook.
Why is a specialized device explicitly for listening to music a good idea? It's a profoundly silly question.
That was my point, the iPod is capable of doing a good job at multiple things. It is not *explicitly* for listening to music any longer. In fact, it's expanded beyond that for a few generations now.
I've read reviews than panned the ergonomics of reading on the Kindle. Specifics had to do with accidental button presses (page forward/back buttons) and how to hold it comfortably.
My point in the end was, What are the use cases for actually using this thing and is it really the best solution?
Who is the intended market? $400 is a LOT to drop on a device you may end up hating. Can you even try one of these things out before buying? I was able to do that with my iPod/phone/computer/etc.
A typical newspaper column of text is two inches wide. An iPod can absolutely do a decent job of managing that.
Do you think this would be a better tool for college students than a run of the mill laptop?
But the same power (and possibly much more) is already being used to process the paper, print the media and distribute the dead tree versions directly to homes.
Sure, processing wood into paper requires energy too. But when I think that some estimates I've read about are that a single google search consumes as much power as lighting a 100W bulb for an hour, how much energy is downloading a 20MB eBook going to take? You know, it's not the kindle itself that will consume that much power, it's the infrastructure behind it.
The successful eBook reader will fill a need in two key markets, guaranteeing that nobody has to pay $400. for it.
The first is the newspaper and magazine industry. Print and distribution costs make eBooks a natural to transform the financial status of the industry. One daily newspaper plus one gossip rag alone will subsidize the hardware cost for readers. Think subscription-based cell phone strategy.
The problem is that the magazine-size device must be colour, which is not yet available.
EXACTLY!
But a device like that is far into the future. Far meaning a good five years.
If it's thin enough, then it could be thrown into a briefcase in the morning, and read on the way into work, assuming one isn't driving.
Otherwise, it would have to roll up, fold up, or have some other way that wouldn't require it to be carries separately.
Quote:
The other market is the Education sector. Jobs has addressed this at Education conferences, so he's definitely not being sincere in saying there's no need for eBooks. The biggest factor here is having solid publishing tools ready so that textbook publishers can get their work on the iTunes Book Store quickly, in time for the semester's classes.
You're wrong about that. The publishing industry has noted over the past decade, or so, that reading books has declines, both here in the US, and in other industrialized countries. It's a fact.
The education sector is completely different. One is REQUIRED to read. That won't change until we have direct brain information induction, and when will THAT happen?
Quote:
This is the only time where the "Apple buys Adobe" rumour even starts to make sense, since Jobs will want to control eBook production. Alternately, Apple could buy Quark and 'Appleize' it.
If Apple buys a big chunk of Adobe (it isn't required to buy it outright to have control of a company), e books would be a very small reason. Quark doesn't have enough breath as a company to interest Apple.
Quote:
Aside from the obvious environmental benefits, this will usher in an age of cheap books and the ability to compile a vast library of information at ridiculously low prices.
Jobs knows this, and he's just laying the groundwork for his "Apple saves the book industry" speech at MWSF in a couple of years.
Just as in all content, books will eventually be downloaded for less cost that it would cost to buy a paper version. Sadly the prices today make it very difficult to rationalize a purchase, unless it's simply for the convenience. We all know the arguments people have been giving as to why they think Apple's movie rental is too expensive (though I don't agree). Books cost much more. Considering that most books, like most movies, are read just once, the price is too high. And, so far at least, you can't give your once read e books away, or sell them.
Considering that most books, like most movies, are read just once, the price is too high. And, so far at least, you can't give your once read e books away, or sell them.
This particular reason is why there is such a good market for used content (I definitely buy used books/CDs/DVDs when I can and if they're in good condition which is almost guaranteed with CD/DVD). With this advent of digital distribution there is *zero* market for used media. All your knowledge and entertainment will cost money.
That may be the way things are going but I don't see it all being quite as rosy as some seem to think it is.
Do people still read newspapers anymore? Why is a specialized device explicitly for reading content a good idea?
I subscribe to the NYTimes and the WSJ.
That's several hundred bucks a year. It's a fair amount of money, but I consider that we get value from it.
Quote:
With devices like the iPhone and iPod touch sporting proper browsers to be able to view real sites and render real web content (as opposed to my Cingular 2125 "smart" phone), is there *really* a large enough market for a single tasker to bother?
While these small devices are really great book readers, they are almost useless for reading anything that has significantly more complex content. You can't comfortably read a newspaper on a Kindle, despite what a few enthusiasts are saying, much less the smaller lower rez devices.
Quote:
Ignoring my obvious bias against the Kindle ( I like Amazon and I enjoy reading, I just don't think the Kindle is worth the bother) what is the point? The type of person likely to be the target for such a device would likely have other gadgets that are already capable of being used and probably do a good job of it.
I think Amazon would almost be better served talking to Apple about including "Amazon Reader" on the iPhone/iPod Touch. That would provide a greater potential for book sales than the Kindle IMO.
For books, yes. But right now, anything else really requires a computer sized screen. even the New Air can do it pretty well. But that's about the lowest rez device that would be comfortable (1280 x 800), unless, and until, the newspaper companies (and magazine publishers as well) can figure out a way to re-do their content so that it becomes easy to use on a smaller rez device. That will take some doing.
Sure, processing wood into paper requires energy too. But when I think that some estimates I've read about are that a single google search consumes as much power as lighting a 100W bulb for an hour, how much energy is downloading a 20MB eBook going to take? You know, it's not the kindle itself that will consume that much power, it's the infrastructure behind it.
I don't know where you read that, but it's off by orders of magnitude.
This is something you would realize if you though of the implications. There are several hundred million searches on Google every day. According to your number, that would mean that Google is using several Gigawatts to power its server farm for searches. That's too absurd to even consider. It's more like 0.001 watt per search. Even that may be too much.
It takes very little power to download a 20 MB book, or any other file. It's the cost of the bandwidth. That's not related to the power used, per se.
Otherwise, how could Apple, MS, and others have software updates of over 100 MB served over the internet without charging?
They couldn't. It costs (using a good round number) 10¢ per kilowatt hour. Use your own numbers to find out what the costs would be.
Your computer, your modem, the next telephone node, the next central telephone node, the ISPs serverroom, another ISPs serverroom, googles mainframe, and then the whole way back. Not included are things like DNS resolution etc etc.
That estimate was the result of a study, so it's certainly not off by orders of magnitude.
The only thing you could argue is that a lot of power is consumed regardless of whether you actually perform the search or not. But the infrastructure to enable the search in the first place is consuming crazy amounts of power.
They mention 11Wh per search, so maybe I remembered it wrong, but it's still a hell lot of power, considering how many searches there are each day. and now if you consider how much power the entire internet uses...
Sure, maybe they are all not totally accurate, but when you start considering how much technological infrastructure is behind everything somehow related to the internet, then you just have to realize how much energy is being consumed.
And sadly, a lot of that energy is wasted into heat too.
Comments
Sorry, are books pocketable? (aside from the gideons' new testament of course)
Do you think any iPod-sized device will ever be comfortable to read novels on?
Yes, and yes.
My family reads a lot. I would say that between us we buy about 100 books a year, and that doesn't include about a dozen subscriptions to magazines and journals.
Most softcover books cost about $7, and most hardcover, a bit under $20.
But then there are the membership discounts available from B&N which brings it down further.
So far, e books cost the same, sometimes more, when the discounted memberships come into play.
There doesn't seem to be any price advantage yet to buying e books, and I've bought a number.
Well, in my experience, books carry similar costs as CDs, and while 10 bucks for an album on iTunes also sometimes means spending more than buying the physical CD online, there are nevertheless millions of people that have been doing that for the past 4 or 5 years. Additionally, while you could buy the CD online for 7 bucks and rip it to your iPod yourself, you can't do that with a book.
Besides that, there's the convenience thing for travellers not having to carry around a ton of books, being able to get newspapers (hopefully more in the future), and downloading new content via wireless.
And with books, you might not get the physical book, but I don't think there's quite the same trade-off in quality/value as from CD/liner notes to iTunes AAC...
I can shove my paperback in pockets I can't shove a Kindle without breaking it. I don't worry about dropping it either.
Quite a few people will say you're wrong in that, as PDa and smartphone book readers have been out for years, and are popular.
You obviously haven't tried it.
Well, I don't wear pants big enough to shove books or newspapers into, and, yes, I've tried reading from both my Blackberry 8300, and my iPod 5.5G, and can't imagine getting through 300 pages on either.
Well, in my experience, books carry similar costs as CDs, and while 10 bucks for an album on iTunes also sometimes means spending more than buying the physical CD online, there are nevertheless millions of people that have been doing that for the past 4 or 5 years. Additionally, while you could buy the CD online for 7 bucks and rip it to your iPod yourself, you can't do that with a book.
Most all CD's, whether online or in a store, cost more than $7. Some cost a lot more. Unless you're buying used Cd's. That makes the iTunes version less expensive.
Many people find a paper book to be more pleasant to handle and read. That may change over time.
Besides that, there's the convenience thing for travellers not having to carry around a ton of books, being able to get newspapers (hopefully more in the future), and downloading new content via wireless.
I'm not knocking the e book as a concept. As I said, I have two readers. I've got several hundred e books. A fair number of them bought, and a larger number from the Gutenberg Project.
Of course, the auto downloads only work in some places.
And with books, you might not get the physical book, but I don't think there's quite the same trade-off in quality/value as from CD/liner notes to iTunes AAC...
I'm not saying there is, except for when there are photos, graphics, or any other oddities that isn't translated to the electronic version. Or, in the case of the Sony and Kindle, color, which I do get on my Treo bookreaders.
Well, I don't wear pants big enough to shove books or newspapers into, and, yes, I've tried reading from both my Blackberry 8300, and my iPod 5.5G, and can't imagine getting through 300 pages on either.
I've had no problems either way.
Well, lots of people spend 300 bucks on an iPod, and then spend more on music to put in it. Same with DVD players and DVDs, Microwave ovens and food, computers and programs, apartments and furniture, etc.
If you read a lot of books, but don't spend 400 bucks in 2 years, you either use the library a lot (unlikely since you say you like having your own), or your definition of a lot is less than a book a month. Nowadays, unless you get discount versions of classics, most new softcover books seem to be in the 15 dollar range and hardcovers get up around 30 bucks.
Maybe you could have done a simple search to see why people would buy kindle - books cost 10 bucks or less (big savings especially over "new release" books which can be up to 30 bucks), you get 2 weeks of power (if you don't use wireless) on a charge, you can download newspapers and books basically from anywhere in the world with wireless service (including via cellphone networks) without having to sync with a computer, etc. etc and it's thinner and lighter than the average paperback. So, if yo read a LOT of books, it makes sense to have one, especially if you travel a lot, or don't feel like having hundreds of books lying around... hmmm kind of like an iPod vs. CDs...
An iPod is a different beast. I can load all my own songs easily. I'll listen to songs several times and it also holds my calendars, notes, contacts and photos as well as some videos. Seems to me a much more solid set of features than that $400 reader.
Holy crap! Where do you shop that you're paying $15 for a softcover book?
Sorry, Kindle does a single thing somewhat well (and that is attributable solely to the screen) and nothing else even remotely as well as many other devices. It's a one trick pony.
Sorry, are books pocketable? (aside from the gideons' new testament of course)
Do you think any iPod-sized device will ever be comfortable to read novels on?
No, not all are but if you're going to make me pay $400 dollars, you'd better have a LOT to offer and the Kindle doesn't.
As for reading on an iPod, I'd think that based on the great high res screen the iPhone and iPod touch have that reading on them would be a pleasure. In fact, that could just be an app that complements their other features.
If the Kindle was in the $100 dollar range it'd seem more in line with what it actually offers. Amazon's goal is to sell content, right? A $400 device is a tough hurdle toward achieving that goal.
The successful eBook reader will fill a need in two key markets, guaranteeing that nobody has to pay $400. for it.
The first is the newspaper and magazine industry. Print and distribution costs make eBooks a natural to transform the financial status of the industry. One daily newspaper plus one gossip rag alone will subsidize the hardware cost for readers. Think subscription-based cell phone strategy.
The problem is that the magazine-size device must be colour, which is not yet available.
The other market is the Education sector. Jobs has addressed this at Education conferences, so he's definitely not being sincere in saying there's no need for eBooks. The biggest factor here is having solid publishing tools ready so that textbook publishers can get their work on the iTunes Book Store quickly, in time for the semester's classes.
This is the only time where the "Apple buys Adobe" rumour even starts to make sense, since Jobs will want to control eBook production. Alternately, Apple could buy Quark and 'Appleize' it.
Aside from the obvious environmental benefits, this will usher in an age of cheap books and the ability to compile a vast library of information at ridiculously low prices.
Jobs knows this, and he's just laying the groundwork for his "Apple saves the book industry" speech at MWSF in a couple of years.
Books are already produced mostly from renewable woods (economic foresting), or even recycled from old paper.
Power to drive an eBook reader however is still largely provided through non-renewable, eg fossil energy sources.
So saying that switching from paper to power is more environmentally friendly is, at least at the current state of the world, not quite true.
With devices like the iPhone and iPod touch sporting proper browsers to be able to view real sites and render real web content (as opposed to my Cingular 2125 "smart" phone), is there *really* a large enough market for a single tasker to bother?
Ignoring my obvious bias against the Kindle ( I like Amazon and I enjoy reading, I just don't think the Kindle is worth the bother) what is the point? The type of person likely to be the target for such a device would likely have other gadgets that are already capable of being used and probably do a good job of it.
I think Amazon would almost be better served talking to Apple about including "Amazon Reader" on the iPhone/iPod Touch. That would provide a greater potential for book sales than the Kindle IMO.
I wouldn't overrate the environmental aspect.
Books are already produced mostly from renewable woods (economic foresting), or even recycled from old paper.
Power to drive an eBook reader however is still largely provided through non-renewable, eg fossil energy sources.
So saying that switching from paper to power is more environmentally friendly is, at least at the current state of the world, not quite true.
But the same power (and possibly much more) is already being used to process the paper, print the media and distribute the dead tree versions directly to homes.
Do people still read newspapers anymore? Why is a specialized device explicitly for reading content a good idea?
Look, if you want to read books on an iPhone, more power to you. But those of us that understand ergonomics know that reading a novel is a personal experience that simply can't be done properly on that device. It's also singularly useless for replicating the newspaper or the college textbook.
Why is a specialized device explicitly for listening to music a good idea? It's a profoundly silly question.
But the same power (and possibly much more) is already being used to process the paper, print the media and distribute the dead tree versions directly to homes.
Look, if you want to read books on an iPhone, more power to you. But those of us that understand ergonomics know that reading a novel is a personal experience that simply can't be done properly on that device. It's also singularly useless for replicating the newspaper or the college textbook.
Why is a specialized device explicitly for listening to music a good idea? It's a profoundly silly question.
That was my point, the iPod is capable of doing a good job at multiple things. It is not *explicitly* for listening to music any longer. In fact, it's expanded beyond that for a few generations now.
I've read reviews than panned the ergonomics of reading on the Kindle. Specifics had to do with accidental button presses (page forward/back buttons) and how to hold it comfortably.
My point in the end was, What are the use cases for actually using this thing and is it really the best solution?
Who is the intended market? $400 is a LOT to drop on a device you may end up hating. Can you even try one of these things out before buying? I was able to do that with my iPod/phone/computer/etc.
A typical newspaper column of text is two inches wide. An iPod can absolutely do a decent job of managing that.
Do you think this would be a better tool for college students than a run of the mill laptop?
But the same power (and possibly much more) is already being used to process the paper, print the media and distribute the dead tree versions directly to homes.
Sure, processing wood into paper requires energy too. But when I think that some estimates I've read about are that a single google search consumes as much power as lighting a 100W bulb for an hour, how much energy is downloading a 20MB eBook going to take? You know, it's not the kindle itself that will consume that much power, it's the infrastructure behind it.
You guys still don't get it.
The successful eBook reader will fill a need in two key markets, guaranteeing that nobody has to pay $400. for it.
The first is the newspaper and magazine industry. Print and distribution costs make eBooks a natural to transform the financial status of the industry. One daily newspaper plus one gossip rag alone will subsidize the hardware cost for readers. Think subscription-based cell phone strategy.
The problem is that the magazine-size device must be colour, which is not yet available.
EXACTLY!
But a device like that is far into the future. Far meaning a good five years.
If it's thin enough, then it could be thrown into a briefcase in the morning, and read on the way into work, assuming one isn't driving.
Otherwise, it would have to roll up, fold up, or have some other way that wouldn't require it to be carries separately.
The other market is the Education sector. Jobs has addressed this at Education conferences, so he's definitely not being sincere in saying there's no need for eBooks. The biggest factor here is having solid publishing tools ready so that textbook publishers can get their work on the iTunes Book Store quickly, in time for the semester's classes.
You're wrong about that. The publishing industry has noted over the past decade, or so, that reading books has declines, both here in the US, and in other industrialized countries. It's a fact.
The education sector is completely different. One is REQUIRED to read. That won't change until we have direct brain information induction, and when will THAT happen?
This is the only time where the "Apple buys Adobe" rumour even starts to make sense, since Jobs will want to control eBook production. Alternately, Apple could buy Quark and 'Appleize' it.
If Apple buys a big chunk of Adobe (it isn't required to buy it outright to have control of a company), e books would be a very small reason. Quark doesn't have enough breath as a company to interest Apple.
Aside from the obvious environmental benefits, this will usher in an age of cheap books and the ability to compile a vast library of information at ridiculously low prices.
Jobs knows this, and he's just laying the groundwork for his "Apple saves the book industry" speech at MWSF in a couple of years.
Just as in all content, books will eventually be downloaded for less cost that it would cost to buy a paper version. Sadly the prices today make it very difficult to rationalize a purchase, unless it's simply for the convenience. We all know the arguments people have been giving as to why they think Apple's movie rental is too expensive (though I don't agree). Books cost much more. Considering that most books, like most movies, are read just once, the price is too high. And, so far at least, you can't give your once read e books away, or sell them.
Considering that most books, like most movies, are read just once, the price is too high. And, so far at least, you can't give your once read e books away, or sell them.
This particular reason is why there is such a good market for used content (I definitely buy used books/CDs/DVDs when I can and if they're in good condition which is almost guaranteed with CD/DVD). With this advent of digital distribution there is *zero* market for used media. All your knowledge and entertainment will cost money.
That may be the way things are going but I don't see it all being quite as rosy as some seem to think it is.
Do people still read newspapers anymore? Why is a specialized device explicitly for reading content a good idea?
I subscribe to the NYTimes and the WSJ.
That's several hundred bucks a year. It's a fair amount of money, but I consider that we get value from it.
With devices like the iPhone and iPod touch sporting proper browsers to be able to view real sites and render real web content (as opposed to my Cingular 2125 "smart" phone), is there *really* a large enough market for a single tasker to bother?
While these small devices are really great book readers, they are almost useless for reading anything that has significantly more complex content. You can't comfortably read a newspaper on a Kindle, despite what a few enthusiasts are saying, much less the smaller lower rez devices.
Ignoring my obvious bias against the Kindle ( I like Amazon and I enjoy reading, I just don't think the Kindle is worth the bother) what is the point? The type of person likely to be the target for such a device would likely have other gadgets that are already capable of being used and probably do a good job of it.
I think Amazon would almost be better served talking to Apple about including "Amazon Reader" on the iPhone/iPod Touch. That would provide a greater potential for book sales than the Kindle IMO.
For books, yes. But right now, anything else really requires a computer sized screen. even the New Air can do it pretty well. But that's about the lowest rez device that would be comfortable (1280 x 800), unless, and until, the newspaper companies (and magazine publishers as well) can figure out a way to re-do their content so that it becomes easy to use on a smaller rez device. That will take some doing.
Sure, processing wood into paper requires energy too. But when I think that some estimates I've read about are that a single google search consumes as much power as lighting a 100W bulb for an hour, how much energy is downloading a 20MB eBook going to take? You know, it's not the kindle itself that will consume that much power, it's the infrastructure behind it.
I don't know where you read that, but it's off by orders of magnitude.
This is something you would realize if you though of the implications. There are several hundred million searches on Google every day. According to your number, that would mean that Google is using several Gigawatts to power its server farm for searches. That's too absurd to even consider. It's more like 0.001 watt per search. Even that may be too much.
It takes very little power to download a 20 MB book, or any other file. It's the cost of the bandwidth. That's not related to the power used, per se.
Otherwise, how could Apple, MS, and others have software updates of over 100 MB served over the internet without charging?
They couldn't. It costs (using a good round number) 10¢ per kilowatt hour. Use your own numbers to find out what the costs would be.
Think along the whole way:
Your computer, your modem, the next telephone node, the next central telephone node, the ISPs serverroom, another ISPs serverroom, googles mainframe, and then the whole way back. Not included are things like DNS resolution etc etc.
That estimate was the result of a study, so it's certainly not off by orders of magnitude.
The only thing you could argue is that a lot of power is consumed regardless of whether you actually perform the search or not. But the infrastructure to enable the search in the first place is consuming crazy amounts of power.
I'll see if I can find a link.
*Chuckle*
Well, you just gotta love Jobs for his insistence that Android is a go-nowhere platform. I tend to disagree, but we'll see.
Is it really appropriate for Steve to make those comments since Apple is currently working with Google?
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/computer/artikel/680/131447/
they mention about 70W for a search
http://www.innovativ-in.de/blog/2007...fur-das-klima/
they mention 4Wh power consumption per search in the Google mainframe alone.
http://perpenduum.com/2007/10/a-sing...s-in-one-hour/
They mention 11Wh per search, so maybe I remembered it wrong, but it's still a hell lot of power, considering how many searches there are each day. and now if you consider how much power the entire internet uses...
And here's another study: http://enterprise.amd.com/Downloads/...pletefinal.pdf
And another article: http://blogs.sun.com/rolfk/entry/you...int_when_using
Sure, maybe they are all not totally accurate, but when you start considering how much technological infrastructure is behind everything somehow related to the internet, then you just have to realize how much energy is being consumed.
And sadly, a lot of that energy is wasted into heat too.